1. When does guessing ever become reasonable in journalism? 2. fine. 3. A "floor" on something causal and non-binding is a legitimate oxymoron, two opposing concepts in clear daylight. 100-billion a year by 2020 when the country with the biggest GDP will only give 3-billion between the 4 years of 2016-2020? Where is the reasonable "ramping up?" I don't see it. Countries should not be expected to make such a drastic jump - we agree. So where is the reasonable ramp?

4. Your argument is fair that he has gained the reputation he is seeking. I don't think it's bad point. But it doesn't inherently refute the importance of reputation. Reputation, character, etc., they have to be maintained and consistent. This is human nature, consistency is the glue that holds together our perceptions of one another, and even inanimate phenomenon as well(societal/psychological patterns). Holding steady, but then eventually backing down can signal others in power that there is in fact a strategy for getting through one's defenses. Yes, it's true, this is part fo what makes people hate Trump, but for others it is still a great strength that other international players don't have.

5. You say I dropped the argument. His last counter as it related to the tradgedy of the commons(TC) was noted. I explained that the acknowledgement of such social phenomenon(Sociology is actually one of the newest scientific disciplines) is part of what empowers the human race to move forward. The same can be said of other new mental/physical inventions, like the internet which also give individuals power that they did not have before. The TC, as a representation of the shortcomings of individual vs. collective behavior, does just that. It is taught in colleges mainly, but as we progress and become more intelligent it makes its way into the audiences of younger minds more easily as it is passed down through public(schools) and private means, the internet(books too) being one again; a video of the phenomenon on youtube, or an explanation on wikipedia, etc. It's resources like these that allow us to hold individuals more accountable for their actions - the question is whether each subsequent generation is willing to take on the new torch of responsibility they are handed down, or if they rather keep it enshrined in collective institutions. There's no arguing that the means for individual empowerment advances with each subsequent generation.

6. What's to talk about? We had this debate. I heard no scientific rebuttals against my points that abided by scientific standards  as opposed to casual blasphemy. Scientific standards are absolutely imperative when it's being used as your main defense of funding for Climate Change. If we disagree on that last point then yes "science not being what people have been led to believe(and the nature of science itself)" is a fair emphasis. I acknowledge Climate Change, but it's solutions are not as sound, and it's causes are not as clear as people have been led to believe. I even left it off with the notion that saving humanity through a financial focus on planetary migration could actually make more sense than reversing or slowing down climate change. Per dollar the agreement may actually be very ineffective - a statement that I can make because the science is simply not expansive enough(planetary climate is an expansive/expanding subject) to refute otherwise. People in favor of the Agreement recognize the hurdles of the proposed solutions not doing enough or being overly hopeful, surely you've seen this.

I've acknowledge all of your points while conceding on #2. I haven't dropped anything, but stood firmly on my arguments and rebuttals. You may have misinterpretted my ettiquete in calling a good debate a truce or valid point fair as concesions, but it is only my way of trying to say a fruitful debate was achieved.

We're currently close or at the point of no return. Pretty much next 10 years will be critical in terms of future of this planet. With 97% consensus in scientific community, there's no doubts that humans are responsible and consequences of ignoring the issue will be catastrophic for all of us. Personally I have no respect for climate change deniers, including president Trump. Him pulling out from the Paris Accord is the best, imaginable example of running away from responsibilities. The biggest pollutants like USA or China should lead by example and not be viewed by rest of the world as some evil super villains.

We've done it once with the Montreal protocol and I'm confident we as humanity, can do it again. With one, collaborative agreement in 1987, we've shrunk ozon layer hole by 4 milion sq km and EPA estimates that the treaty will prevent over 280 million cases of skin cancer and 1.5 million skin cancer deaths in the United States alone. Yet still it will take another 20-30 years for the ozone layer to be considered fully healed ... that IF all countries continue to comply.

Now have a wild guess who was mocking that treaty? Yes, it was our beloved Mr. T. And no, that wasn't in the 80's, it was during his campaign, 30 years later where, the results and evidence are overwhelming, saying that there's no way that his hair spray would affect the ozone layer. Now I'm hearing that the Trump FY18 budget proposal slashes funding to support compliance with the Montreal protocol. Is very much clear, that we're dealing with scientifically illiterate ignorant/idiot. I really don't know how anyone can defend him at this point.

1.  It wasn't a "guess" as in "guess the number I am thinking of between 1 and 10."  It was a "guess" as in "guess whether Microsoft's annual revenue is closer to one million or one billion dollars."  Anyone who is even mildly educated on the subject should be able to correctly make such a "guess".  And while it would be nice to take away the guesswork completely, at what point do you draw the line at providing more and more and more information as opposed to assuming a certain about of pre-existing knowledge in your readership?  It's a judgement call.  Even if they made an error there I think it's an overstatement to say it's evidence of terrible journalism. 

3.  It is absolutely not an oxymoron.  Do you complain about "suggested donations" at charity events?  The "floor" is the point below which the countries will have failed to live up to their agreement; however, this failure will incur no penalty.  I don't see why that's a logically unsound proposition.  Perhaps you might say it's an invitation to failure, but that's entirely different from what you're arguing. 

As for the ramping up, just because the U.S. made a 3-billion dollar commitment to be paid over a certain period or by a certain date doesn't preclude them from later adding additional commitments in overlapping time periods.  It's certainly unlikely under Trump, of course.  My guess is that although countries have been given plenty of space to ramp up, many will procrastinate until close to the end of the period and then be shamed into greatly increasing payments, but probably failing the goal.  The timeframe allotted is reasonable, but that doesn't guarantee countries are using it wisely.  Nevertheless, it's not impossible by any means for them to still put in the target amount in the named year. 

4.  Even if I were to grant that it is reasonable in theory to be looking for places to "make a stand" purely to further the goal of cultivating such an image, this cannot be done in a vacuum.  I do not feel as though your proposition takes into account evaluating whether the gain to his reputation is worth the loss of international agreements that would have benefited the U.S. through its participation if not for the decision to back out in order to achieve that gain to his reputation.  Especially if in order to be consistent he would have to keep doing it.  How would that not incredibly destructive to our nation's standing in the world?  What could Trump possibly gain from his reputation alone that would outweigh such costs? 

5.  I believe palou already said, and I agree, that all the things you said do not adequately address the problem of each individual facing a disincentive to do what is better for everyone, or an incentive to do what is worse for everyone.  I agree that society is going in the right direction in terms of inculcating environmental friendliness into the culture; however, I very strongly disagree that it has succeeded to such a great extent that individual action alone will suffice to meet the challenges we face as a global society regarding those issues without action at the state level.  We are merely to the point where individuals will support the group effort collectively, instead of saying "there's no possible way we could hunt passenger pigeons to extinction; it's hard for me to imagine, so it must be impossible". 

When I said you "dropped the argument" I did not mean that you conceded, but that in my opinion you just restated your position without addressing his argument and left it there without following up, and without explicitly (that I saw) "calling a truce" or agreeing to disagree.  Perhaps that was your intention, and on rereading the relevant posts it does seem like that is what you were doing without explicitly saying so. 

6.  We most certainly have not had this debate.  I will admit that you have made a few more specific statements on this than I have during the course of this thread, such as saying that although we know carbon emissions are bad we don't know how much effect they are having, but while I have issued some contrary opinions and broad statements of some of my own positions I have specifically not gone full-out in calling up counterarguments and evidence on specific topics like that for the very reason that this will inevitably sprawl into a huge debate on many sub-topics of the science of climate change (and apparently science in general) and I wanted to concentrate on this other stuff first.  I believe I have said things to that effect before but I hope I have now made my position entirely clear, which I may not have made sufficient efforts to do before. 

Thank you for bearing with me. 

Feel free to respond or not to this last reply(not much new is coming from this).

1. The "guess" was not a reasonable one. The US is capable of 100 Billion so there's no unreasonable logic there. And it happens to be one of the bigger points in the article/agreement in general, so journalistically it's not okay to be reasonable imperfect on that. I'm not gonna bash journalists on the small stuff, but this detail is not a small one.

3. We'll have agree to disagree on this. A floor/cieling on an unmandatory and loose agreement doesn't jive with me. Also, it is in fact guesswork that countries will decide to meet their ramp-up goals only till the last "minute"/year. Proportionally the expectations of the post-2020 payments grossly exceed it's pre-2020 payments. And we are not making good work on pre-2020 even before dropping out.

4. There is of course a cost/benefit to his firm stance on issues. In this case it doesn't have to be win/lose though. In regards to my previous talk of individual efforts overlapping collective ones, dropping out of the agreement puts pressure and responsibility on smaller actors and agents; state level politicians like Bill DeBlasio have vowed to take on the responsibility as have powerful individuals like Michael Bloomberg. The dropping out of this agreement is starting to show where individual loyalities lie - something I, and I hope others now too, will be watching closely.

5. Individuals, especially ones with families, still have individual care for people of the future. Individualism doesn't have to mean self-interest, it's merely the level(the most basic unit of society) at which incentive starts. Many individuals still have external cares about the environment, animals/pets, family, etc. Since you didn't disagree with my point about individuals becoming smarter and more aware of things like the TC with each passing generation, there's no reason they can't avoid specific iterations of the TC when they know it will destroy future loved ones by only caring about themselves. Imo as we get smart and more capable, not all issues need a collective authority pointing a gun at our head to tell us what is right, we can figure it out for ourselves.

6. When you decide to delve into the details yourself you will realize what a holy un-uniform mess it is. To actually be able to tell what processes(transportation energy, methane/cattle, CFCs, litering, etc.) contribute less/greater pollution to a reaosnable certainty, combined with somehow discriminating those process between countries, while taking into account larger planetary climate systems already in place...and then to figure out what solutions to implement, of which Paris-Agreement supporters recognize don't do enough. You said science is evolving on the matter - it better because it's somehwat of a Pandora's Box right now which is why I actually made a serious comment about planetary migration.

Imo it will take more than governments to fix this. We need individual actors, organizations, and smaller levels of government(that aren't bound by the shackles of a ~400million-participant democracy) to step up and look at problems in innovative ways(reversing/slowing climate change is a very straight-forward inside-the-box idea). I veiw it as a child-parent relationship in all seriousness. I want Trump to get rid of the decades of conditioning that have lulled people into the feeling that governments will take care of everything, or that they can take care of everything.

Collective Power is not the answer to everything, hopefully that was felt behind most of my assertions. I think we've been able to bear eachother ;)

1.  Your argument relies on the assumption that the grammar of the article allowed the interpretation that the $100B/yr figure applied only to the USA.  I've already explained that this is not the case and provided my evidence.  ("The grammar of the passage does not support the interpretation that it could be a US-only goal and that other countries have other individual goals.  ("richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020"))  But I will go into more detail. 

Consider the statement "richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year".  "like the US" is a parenthetical phrase, which modifies, clarifies, or otherwise concerns itself with the preceding phrase "richer countries".  In this context, the US is one of these richer countries.  This statement logically allows the possibility that richer countries like the US are supposed to collectively send $100B/yr., and it also allows the possibility that richer countries like the US are supposed to individually send $100B/yr. each.   It does not logically allow the possibility that the US and no one else is supposed to individually send $100B/yr.  This interpretation directly conflicts with the plural "countries" and is not compatible with the way the statement was written. 

This being the case, and since you already said that the idea of many many countries each individually sending $100B/yr. is crazy, that eliminates one of the two logical possibilities, leaving only the other one, which in fact is the correct information.  Also, supposing for the sake of argument that they were wrong not to specify between these two possibilities, they are still not at all at fault for not excluding the possiblity you are mentioning (that the US alone is supposed to individually send $100B/yr.), because in actuality they did not ever introduce that as a possibility. 

3.  OK.  As for the guesswork, I did say those were just my personal speculations.  I agree to calling it guesswork, especially since I was not building on any particular evidence better than "gut feeling". 

4.  True, but it's less than would get done with all the states participating. 

5.  I acknowledge what you said, but nothing you said convinces me away from the position that "I very strongly disagree that [what you mention] has succeeded [i.e., permeated the culture in sufficient numbers and degree] to such a great extent that individual action alone will suffice to meet the challenges we face as a global society regarding those issues without action at the state level."  Fishermen in the Grand Banks destroyed their own livelihood.  I should note that the article does mention that local fishermen warned about the problem but bigger trawlers kept overfishing.  In that sense this is an example of where the individual level was unable to overcome the negative impulses of sub-state-level groups above the level of the individual due to lack of state-level intervention in response to the warning of the individuals.  In other words, large fishing companies overfished it, not locals, while the locals were not able to get the government to respond in time.  However, this caveat in no way makes the situation a worse comparison to what we are talking about; if anything, it makes it even closer. 

6.  You're mistaken if you think I have not already done quite a bit of looking.  I also disagree that removing national level action will be a net positive, though you do raise a good point that states, cities, private groups, and yes individuals will fill some of the vacuum. 

I would certainly agree that collective power isn't the answer to everything, but I do think it is the answer to some things.  Individual level action didn't get us to the moon and I don't think it ever realistically could have.  And it won't IMO be a substitute in the coming two to four decades for national and international cooperation on the issue of climate change.  How familiar are you with the problem humanity faced concerning the ozone layer a few decades ago, and how we dealt with it? 

I will admit that the attitude of some people, "let the government do everything, and I will do nothing about the issue that I am not literally forced to do by the government", is certainly a problem, but I really don't think "government doing nothing, so the people will have to do everything individually without support" is going to be better able to solve the problem in the short term future. 

I would like to take a moment to examine the aside "(reversing/slowing climate change is a very straight-forward inside-the-box idea)".  I do not really see how that is an idea that is either inside or outside the box.  There aren't really many possibilities for the climate other than "go down, stop changing, go up slower, go up faster".  If you're referring to ideas like "how to live better with the climate change", I assure you that is within the scope of what is being envisioned, but it is seen as better if it changes less.  Can you give an example of what you meant by "out of the box"?  I assume you didn't mean "we don't have to worry about climate change if we all move to space stations". 

1. "Richers countries like the US" made me think, logically/grammatically, that, for example, US, France, Canada, would each spend the 100B per year. Not the case, but can be implied by the journalism - that's wrong, especially for a central detail. Don't see what else there is to discuss

5. So we can agree that individualsim isn't infallible. All I really argue is that the capacity for individual repsonsibility grows continually along with, and often as a result of, human progress(technology, rights, health-physical/mental). Too many people have a static and bad view of individualsim. TC was a perfect example of how human progress(in this case through education[sociology]) breaks down the static nature of individual capacity. We can grow beyond our limits and encompass strengths that may have once been exclusive to collective institutions. Internet, accessibile technology(apple/microsoft), social media, human rights(women/minorities can now pitch into society more), have allowed individual responsibility to grow stronger if not shackled by the overlapping efforts of what I interpret to be a huge stride/wave of collectivism stemming from a long relatively peaceful era after WW2 and later Vietnam when domestic issues took the spotlight over international ones. We made great collective progress during those times. But they've gone unchecked for while - I believe in balance.

6. Familiar with the Ozone layer problem and CFCs in the research I've done on Climate Change, but probably not as much as you are. I'm aware that regulations have played a crucial role. that being said I understand these were issues dealt with some 20-30 years ago, the societal climate has changed greatly since then. But yes, collective power was effective.

So yes, out-of-the-box would refer to things besides the obvious slow/stop/reverse climate change. Coping with changing climate is not in that box even if it has been explored as a biproduct of Climate Change research. Planetary migration I've already mentioned. Living in space shuttles? idk, maybe? These are long-term goals that are hard to envision. the pace of techology, how it looks, feels, smells, impacts our lives, is a very hard thing to predict. I don't know what forms those two solutions(Coping and Migration) will take when they finally effect our lives through practical implementation. As for the other out-of-the-box ideas? Well, that's the thing, they're outside the box, we haven't thought of them yet.

And individualists will, generally speaking, unanimously praise the power of capitalism, free markets, and competition, in spurring the most innovative solutions. Ideas that are completely new to the market, like space travel, are often accimpanied very well by collective institutions a la the Moon Landing, but once they get steam it would be nice let the private market(individuals) have a go at them. Trump is pushing in this direction not only legislatively but also publically in how he shapes his actions, opinions, and general rhetoric to the world stage.

1.  Well, $100B would be almost as big as 1/3 of the current Canadian federal budget (an increase of 30%+), but fair enough.  However, if this was the case, I have to wonder why you said earlier, "I don't see how countries whose GDP's are only a fraction of the US's would pay the same 100 Billion", when now you say you thought that was exactly what the agreement was saying.  Please explain that to me. 

Additionally, if you thought many countries would be paying $100B/yr. each, why did you say, "Source1 states 'richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries' misleading us to think this is specifically a US-goal."  Please explain how that isn't directly contradicting what you are now saying, considering what you chose to put in bold, because to me it seems like these are mutually exclusive statements (I read your older statement as saying you thought only the US was called on to pay $100B/yr.). 

5 & 6.  I would agree conditionally that the market is the best system for allocating resources that are already close to market viable* because of how it does so organically and dynamically, without the need for central planning that simple cannot be all-knowing, whereas the free market lets individuals react en masse to their needs, on average working things out naturally—and the condition I place on this is that there are circumstances where the market of individuals and groups of non-state actors will begin to act in various ways detrimental to society and the people in such a way that the free market will not self-correct but rather bad things will happen, some examples being the market will succumb to the malign influence (e.g. monopolies), or a vicious cycle of some kind will be created (e.g. tragedy of the commons).  Industrial pollution is another example where the market does not reliably stop bad things from happening.  I am inclined to believe that you are correct that the potential downside to companies being caught engaging in such practices is both more likely to happen and likely to be more impactful as time goes on and technology democratizes the flow of information, but again I must strongly disagree that such mechanisms are strong enough to "take over" from state regulation and intervention. 

* So, as you already said, things like space exploration and inventing the Internet are best handled by Al Gore governments that use collective political will to carry out such long-term investments that may not turn a profit soon or ever.  (If it's the sort of development that anyone can take advantage of, it's not necessarily advantageous for a market actor to spend lots of resources developing something that competitors will be able to take advantage of almost as well as it can, no matter how much the society in general values such a thing and would buy it.)  Then the market takes over and fills space the Internet with porn. 

7.  One interesting point I would like to make is the fact that market systems have a "boom and bust" phenomenon that is well documented and this phenomenon is definitely not attributable in general to state regulation or intervention (though I would not claim that it has never caused a boom or bust).  These cycles can be extremely damaging to the individuals affected even if the market system in general bounces back in short order, which to my limited knowledge would be a very arguable claim.  So state regulation here would be aimed at moderating the market to try to avoid or mitigate these boom and bust cycles.  I suppose a different solution might be for a nation to not even try to moderate the cycle, but try to save up in good times and pay out welfare to the market "losers" in bad times, but that requires both foresight and the political willingness to implement such a welfare program (which would be much larger in the bad times). 

The reason for my surprise (I don't see how...) was because of that legitimate journalistic confusion that stemmed from the grammatical error. Journalistically an auidence has to accept what the article is saying while still critiquing it. It could very well ahve been true despite what I knew about the US GDP, in fact it could have been one of the reasons people were bashing the Agreement for being unreasonable. It turns it, for some critics, it was unreasonable enough in other ways, but that could have logically been another reason while still being unreasonable.

-

Competition is great for innovation. It is halted by oversight and regulations stemming from collective institutions. They can't operate at the same time, we have to switch back and forth(like I said, I feel a "switch" has been long overdue from my interpretation of history[peacetime/domestic focus, etc.]). In other words, there will inevitably be negative side effects during these innovative periods that will be directly related to a lack of focus on things like safety concerns, etc.

That's why it's important we switch back. We need periods of deregulation that will eventually be followed up by regulation once again. But a constant chokehold helps no one just as much as a constant free-for-all will bring about mayhem that you allude to. Globalism(the biggest form of collectivism we can have at the moment), big International governments(US is the biggest), and other internation groups, have had a lot of unchecked power and support in this era. During that time the capacity for individuals to affect society positively has grown immensely but with no political outlet to express its potential. I look to people like Trump and Marie Le Pen(unfortunately gone), who abhor government, to open these floodgates.

Dropping out of this Agreement is a bold move that sets us in that direction(without taking much away imo). I've already heard about State-level politcians like NYC's Bill De Blasio, and wealthy individuals like Michael Bloomberg who are vowing to take on Climate Change repsonsibility, and it hasn't been that long since the agreement was left. It is my strong belief that society has in fact already taken a stronger interest in the subject matter as a direct result of this move regardless of whether people like or dislike it. I think discussions like these will actually become more commonplace as well, albeit different from face-to-face interactions(tend to be more emotional and unforgiving).

Globalism can also mean a more open market.

I would personally support a completely open international labour market. Economic theory would state that a single market is inevitably more productive than the sum its parts (supposing no other regulation is involved).

It can mean alot of things depending on the context, but within the steady stream of back-and-forths it meant global-unified regulations/legislation.

Anyways, An international labor market means throwing out the minimum wage, or having classes of wages(I support this), which the US-democrats would scream about - and yet they are the biggest supporters of illegal immigrants that end up taking dirt jobs below the minimum wage. In other words, we already acknowledge back-handedly that some markets work well below the minimum wage.

One of the biggest challenges we face towards modernizing the world - meaning propping up failing economies of the Middle East and Africa, will be to let them participate in this global labor market. They can't do it at 7-9 bucks an hour because their skills (malnourished/physically weak, uneducated, etc.) aren't worth 7-9 bucks. But right now a lot of them get close to zero or end up participating in the black markets and/or criminal behavior which further erodes those economies and their potential. But if we got rid of globabl minimum wage barriers than yes 2-3 dollars/per-hour could become feasible.

Planet Earth can not make siginificant progress while huge patches of the planet don't participate....BUT, this is definitely starting to exceed the limits of this forum thread.